5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Galați.
6.  The applicant is a civil servant and works for the Galaţi mayor’s office as head of the technical department. On 11 April 2008 an article was published in the local online newspaper Antidotul by the journalist I.G. The title of the article, printed in bold type, was “Two Slyboots from the Mayor’s Office Protect the Maxi-taxi Mafia in Galaţi”(Doi şmecheri din primărie protejează mafia maxi-taxi din Galaţi). A photograph of the applicant was shown under the title of the article with the following comment in bold type: “Suckers complain in vain to Jalbă” (La Jalbă, fraierii vin degeaba cu jalba-n proţap).
7.  The article started by describing the applicant as the former head of the department of transport in the Galaţi mayor’s office, who was subsequently promoted to a higher-level post within the mayor’s office. The article went on to present what the journalist deemed to be “the facts”. Firstly, it stated that it was no coincidence that the son of the applicant’s successor as head of the department of transport in the Galaţi mayor’s office had been employed as a manager by company S., one of the larger private maxi-taxi transport providers operating in the area. It stated that this was an attempt “to ensure peace of mind on the road and a healthy profit” for the transport provider. Secondly, it stated that “it’s blatantly obvious that young Laurenţiu Jalbă is an old fox in a sneaky business. The dude owns cars that run on the maxi-taxi routes and bring in large sums of money for the private transport operator ACJGT”. The last part of the article depicted violence similar to the kind found in films portraying members of organised crime and went on to state that the local public transport department operated by the town council had made several attempts to improve transport services in the city but its requests for public transport licences – including transport licences for the routes covered by the maxi-taxis – had been rejected by “the mayor’s office when the applicant was employed there”, in spite of the scandal that ensued, “because this fellow, with his maxi-taxi business, is not interested in making the public transport services efficient, but rather in filling up his bank accounts without anyone holding him accountable”.
8.  Since he considered the impugned article to be defamatory and to have subjected him to public contempt, thereby destroying his honour, dignity and professional reputation and interfering with his right to family life, the applicant lodged a general tort-law action against the journalist I.G. seeking 10,000 lei (RON) (approximately 2,800 euros (EUR)) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. He argued that the journalist had published an insulting and slanderous article about him, accusing him of abuse of power without any proof and without properly examining the transport legislation in force at the time. He submitted evidence proving that neither he nor his family members owned any maxi-taxi business – nor were they associated with one – that no disciplinary or criminal action had been initiated against him for alleged acts of corruption, that the department of transport he was managing had not suffered any loss as a result of his actions, and that no third parties had lodged any complaints in relation to his conduct. In addition, he submitted that – under the transport legislation in force at the time – the 2005 contract for transport licences awarded to the local public transport operator could not have been reallocated for a period of five years and no other licences could therefore have been granted during that period. Consequently, he claimed that not one of the journalist’s statements was true.
9.  In his submissions in reply to the applicant’s general tort-law action, I.G. contended before the domestic courts that his article had been intended to inform the public about the public transport situation in the city and not to defame the applicant. In addition, he argued that the applicant had failed to ask the newspaper to publish a rebuttal (drept la replică). Furthermore, his article had used as a source of information complaints lodged with the Galaţi mayor’s office by several vehicle owners with regard to the failure of the mayor’s office to issue transport licences for private maxi-taxi operators which had fulfilled the lawful requirements to obtain such a licence. Moreover, in an article published on 18 September 2008 in the local newspaper Impact Est, the applicant had acknowledged that his mother had worked as a taxi driver for the private transport provider ACJGT between 2004 and February 2007. Lastly, he submitted copies of the aforementioned pieces of evidence before the domestic courts.
10.  In his written submissions before the domestic courts the applicant argued inter alia that the third-party complaint which I.G. had relied on as a source of information could not be deemed relevant for the article because it had been lodged with the mayor’s office almost six months after he had left his post as head of the department of transport and had concerned the vehicle owners’ disgruntlement with the enforcement by the mayor’s office of new legislation concerning the granting of transport licences. In addition, the article of 18 September 2008 had referred to his mother working as a taxi driver – an activity which he had never managed – and not as a maxi‑taxi operator.
11.  On 18 February 2009 the Galaţi District Court allowed the applicant’s general tort-law action and ordered the journalist to pay the applicant the compensation for non-pecuniary damage that he had sought. It held that the journalist had published the article “Two Slyboots from the Mayor’s Office Protect the Maxi-taxi Mafia in Galaţi”, in which he portrayed the applicant as a “slyboots”, an “old fox in a sneaky business”, and one of the “fellows with maxi-taxi businesses” who was interested in “filling up his bank accounts”. The journalist had expressly stated that the applicant “owns cars that run on the maxi-taxi routes”, meaning that he was the proprietor of a business incompatible with his civil-servant status, a statement which would have exposed the applicant to very serious personal and professional consequences if proved to be true. The applicant’s public image had been tarnished by the journalist’s defamatory statements, which had been unsupported by evidence and had not been subject to preliminary investigation. Consequently, the journalist bore responsibility for the damage caused to the applicant because he had acted negligently. Journalistic freedom of expression was not absolute and was restricted by the applicant’s right to dignity, to protection of his public image and to private life. The journalist had failed to carry out a preliminary investigation of the information used in his article and had failed to support any of his statements with relevant evidence, while the applicant had proved that the statements concerned could not be confirmed. No registration number was recorded in the local mayor’s office in connection with the third-party complaint relied on by the journalist, nor did the complaint refer to the applicant’s name or actions. Even if the complaint had in fact contained such references, the applicant would still have enjoyed his right to be presumed innocent pending an official decision. The journalist’s statements had not been substantiated by the copy of the article of 18 September 2008 either, because the applicant’s mother had stopped working as a taxi driver in February 2007, before the article had been published. The journalist lodged an appeal on points of law (recurs) against the judgment.
12.  On 21 January 2010 the Galaţi County Court, sitting as a final‑instance court, allowed the journalist’s appeal on points of law, quashed the judgment of 18 February 2009, and dismissed the applicant’s action. It held that the article had concerned an issue of public interest – in particular the management by a civil servant of public funds pertaining to transport licences – and not just aspects of the applicant’s private life. In the light of the applicant’s civil-servant status, the limits of acceptable criticism of his activity had been wider and, given the public nature of the debate concerning the management of public funds, the degree of exaggeration and provocation had been tolerable. In addition, the journalist’s comments had been made in the form of a value judgment which did not have to be proved to be exact. A defamed person’s right to respect for his reputation, although legitimate, could very rarely be allowed to prevail over public interest, particularly in circumstances where such public interest was very important. Freedom of expression, in particular the right to impart and receive information, was a central element of democracy. Lastly, the press was democracy’s watchdog and journalistic freedom and the public’s right to access information were extremely broad, even though exercising one’s freedom of expression also entailed duties and responsibilities.
13. On an unspecified date the applicant brought criminal proceedings against the journalist for slander, together with a civil-party application.
14.  On 25 March 2009 the Galaţi Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the applicant’s criminal complaint against the journalist on the grounds that the Romanian Criminal Code provisions on slander had been repealed. The applicant did not appeal against the decision before the domestic courts.